In America, most people believe that everyday citizens going about their daily lives have a right to self-defense. In fact, most people as well as governmental institutions are under the impression that self defense is a natural right and is protected by our second amendment. There are even certain laws on the books that protect a persons right to self defense. Many times, authors may use certain writing techniques and rhetoric in order to try to get their point across to readers. In Ta-Nehsi Coates’s “Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice” and Darrell Miller’s “Self Defense, Defense of Others, and the State” both authors allow the readers to connect and understand their writing pieces by showing and evaluating the root cause of the passage of self defense laws and how self defense laws have degraded certain groups of people in the past as well as the present. These authors are able to grasp and hold on to the attention of their respective audiences throughout the reading.
In Ta-Nehisi Coates piece, he specifically gears the reading towards a general population of people who don’t really know much about the law. It seems to be geared toward people who are more interested in the actual Trayvon Martin case rather than people who are interested in the law regarding it. Coates provides an interesting perspective on the case. Coates says that according to Florida law, the jury in the case got their decision right. Coates also published his work with the Atlantic. The Atlantic is known for having a more liberally leaning viewership base. This is an online published piece that means that viewership will also probably be younger as they tend to make up most online journalism audiences. Coates’ writing piece speaks on the reasoning of why self defense laws were passed. Coates writes about whether there was a specific reason that states such as Florida passed the stand your ground law. Coates also says that the reasoning behind the passage of self defense laws is the need for the powerful to stay in control by creating and reinforcing a pariah class. Towards the end of his piece he says that the Trayvon Martin case is not considered an example of the American justice system it is what makes up the system.
Te-Nehisi Coates encourages readers throughout the text to think on the bigger picture. “On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the courtroom, then you have been head-faked by history and you have bought into an idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.” (Coates). Coates gets the reader to thing critically on a larger political and social level that goes beyond the single case of Trayvon Martin. “You should not be troubled that George Zimmerman “got away” with the killing of Trayvon Martin, you should be troubled that you live in a country that ensures that Trayvon Martin will happen.” (Coates) In the piece Coates even references historical American figures and documents to get his point across to the reader. Another interesting thing about this piece is that while writing the piece Coates starts with the small picture but eventually expands to the national view or big picture. This is interesting because it allows for the reader to stay enticed and makes it easier for the reader to follow along. Coates also references another case in which he identifies the same injustice occurring. By delving into the Trayvon Martin case and then showing another case where the same laws and system in place is causing a similar injustice really allows the reader to grasp the idea that this is really plaguing our nation. By writing about this second instance, Coates is sure to make clear that the Trayvon Martin case isn’t some rarity or something that may fall under a loophole of the Florida law, it was one occurrence of possibly many similar cases.
In Darrell Miller’s writing, he makes sure to use factual data to get his point across. Miller does this by providing foot notes at the bottom of almost every page. These footnotes take up almost as much room as the actual writing does. Providing these footnotes is an example of Ethos being utilized as he as historical and legal documents for readers to reference to help him get his point across.If a reader see’s the footnotes, Miller is able to get his points across in a more efficient matter by providing evidence and historical pieces as a back up to cite. Miller’s piece is mainly for an audience of scholars in the field of law as well as jurist. Miller uses diction and a syntax that people in the law field are familiar with and would be able to read with out much difficulty. The piece is published in the Duke University Law Journal. A law journal or law review speaks on current or past legal issues and is published by students of an accredited educational institution usually through a states bar association. Not only is any law journal well respected, but the law journal of Duke University which is one of the most respected law schools in the country is icing on the cake. This is another example of Ethos being used as publishing his work through a highly respected law journal is a way that shows readers that not only Miller knows what he is talking about, but it also shows that the facts in his piece are relevant and correct. This is another tool that Miller uses to persuade the reader.
Miller references the connection between common law and the actual wording of the second amendment. Miller says that the second amendment doesn’t really allow for self defense, court cases were responsible in creating and forming the common law around how self defense is seen as today. In Miller’s piece he evaluates the roots of self defense laws and explains that self defense has been rooted in our society since its foundation. Miller informs us that our western societal belief in a fundamental natural right to self defense pre-dates our constitution. Miller explains that it was transported over from Europe and merely started as somewhat of a tradition. Miller points out that self defense was never meant to be an individual right as American courts see it today. In fact, Miller says it was quite the opposite. Self defense started with the sovereign back in Europe. American courts cite English common law as the reason of self defense being a fundamental right. The only problem with this as stated by Miller is that homicide that was done for self defense required a special mercy from the king. If you did commit homicide out of self defense you were required to shower the king with gifts and riches. This led to the rich and entitled being subjected to a higher chance of being pardoned by the king. Of course if the king liked the gifts he would be more likely to pardon you.
Both Te-Nehisi Coates and Darren Miller analyze the law in it current form but do a great job in going back and trying to find the root of the law and the social, political and economic reasons behind why the law was passed and why there may be a misunderstanding about it today. In Coates piece he clearly says that the reason that self defense laws were passed was to alienate a certain group of people and make them institutionally disadvantaged. Whats interesting is to see the connection between the two pieces. Miller says that originally there was no such thing as a justifiable self defense, only excusable. Miller also says it was all the decision of the sovereign as well and this depended on a bunch of factors. This may have led to the poor or the pariah class being left out. Similarly, Coates also cites that the reasoning behind the laws were due to the fact that the entitled class wanted to create a pariah class. Another thing that Miller says (page 94) is that the government has seemed to put enforcing the law into the hands of the citizen. This directly connects to Coates when he informs us that under Florida law, Zimmerman is actually not guilty. Coates says under Florida law Zimmerman had no responsibility at any time to retreat. This connection allows reader to understand that over the years, the government has put more emphasis on individuals taking justice into their own hands.
Coates and Miller do an extraordinary job in getting their point across to the readers and persuading them. Some of the ways in which they do this method in which they publish their work, the time period/circumstances in which they publish and the way they cite and use information from other sources. By analyzing both history and the present situation as well as the little picture and then the big one allow readers to get a better grasp and understanding of the points they are trying to make. In each of their respective ways, the authors of each writing piece allow readers to comprehend that one of the reasons self defense is seen as a fundamental right and laws are passed promoting it is due to the fact that it promotes a pariah class.
Jordans Blog 